Facing Facts on Pharma

For decades, the University has served as a hub for researchers breaking each next barrier in science. But because of ballooning federal budget deficits and Republican control of the House, the grant money that Harvard’s research initiatives receive from the federal government  may decline. As reported last week, the University intends to compensate for the loss in government funds by forming more partnerships with private corporations. However, Harvard should not rely on the private sector to fund scientific research because financial dependence on private companies creates an unequal partnership, one that risks compromising the integrity of University research.

Research partnerships between universities and private-sector entities can be unethical; these partnerships entail a delicate balance between two parties with very different interests. Academic research facilitates free intellectual inquiry for the scholarly purpose of advancing knowledge. In contrast, research sponsored by pharmaceuticals or other corporations is more focused and ultimately directed toward the goal of creating products that can be patented for commercial profit. Funding the type of broad, exploratory research unique to a university setting is not economically practical for private companies unless a particular research project has the potential to bring commercial gain.

The University’s chief technology development officer, Isaac T. Kohlberg, told The Crimson that companies that provide funds will not direct or interfere with research. However, as exemplified by the case of the established collaboration with the international pharmaceutical Sanofi-Aventis, private sponsors will at least procure the right to utilize Harvard’s scientific findings for the development of new drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, typically do not grant proprietary information about their drug compounds to academic scientists in university-industry partnerships. Given this unequal exchange of data, collaboration mainly serves the interest of the company, which receives a more complete picture of new scientific developments in relation to established applications, rather than the academic institution.

The consequences of private funding for institutional research is demonstrated by the pharmaceutical industry’s experiences with medical schools. Last year, Harvard Medical School drew negative attention when it received an F grade by the American Medical Student Association for its failure to regulate funds provided by pharmaceuticals. The backlash included a student movement, aided by sympathetic faculty, which prompted HMS to require disclosure of faculty ties to the industry. This revealed that approximately 1,600 HMS professors and lecturers had a financial interest in a business related to their teaching, research, or clinical care or had a family member who had such a connection. In effect, many researchers are experiencing a conflict of interest, reporting “impartial” conclusive data in favor of a particular drug while they are paid to work as spokespersons for that drug. Should Harvard adhere to its plan to emphasize private funding, other science-related research branches of the university may suffer a dilemma similar to the alleged corruption of HMS.

Undoubtedly, the concept of university-industry collaboration is far from novel. Harvard maintains existing partnerships with private companies, including a five-year, $20 million relationship with chemical company BASF. Nonetheless, as University Provost Steven E. Hyman informed The Crimson, the, government support is imperative and cannot be replaced with private funding.

Instead of augmenting private sector alliances in anticipation of a decline in government funding, the University should increase efforts to safeguard existing government grants that play a significant role in financing research. Alternatively, the University could explore other avenues of funding, such as joint research with other academic institutions. In the end, Harvard’s administrators must draw careful lines to limit the influence of corporate sponsors on institutional research.

Tarina Quraishi ’14, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Hollis Hall.